4/9/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly The Labor Arbiter decreed as follows: WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered finding [petitioners] jointly and severally liable to: 1) To pay [Medel] the amount of US$60,000.00 or its peso equivalent at the prevailing exchange rate at the time of payment, representing permanent and total disability; [and] 2) To pay [Medel] the equivalent amount of ten (10%) percent of the total judgment award, as and for attorney’s fees; All other claims are hereby dismissed for lack of merit.[24] Petitioners filed a Memorandum of Appeal[25] before the NLRC, which was docketed as NLRC CA No. 029790-01. In their appeal, petitioners alleged that the disability compensation granted to Medel was improper because the same was not based on a disability assessment issued by the company-designated physician. As Medel was not disabled, they argued that he was not entitled to any compensation, including attorney’s fees. In its Decision dated July 31, 2002, the Second Division of the NLRC found merit in the petitioners’ appeal and disposed of the same thus: WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is SET ASIDE and a new one entered by ordering [Medel’s] claim DISMISSED for lack of merit.[26] The NLRC ruled that under Section 20(B)(2) of the 1996 POEA SEC, the disability of a seafarer should be assessed by the company-designated physician. The employer shall be liable for the seafarer’s medical treatment until the latter is declared fit to work or his disability is assessed. Should the seafarer recover, the NLRC posited that the contractual obligation of the employer should cease. However, if the seafarer is found to be incapacitated, the employer’s contractual obligation shall terminate only after the latter pays the seafarer’s disability benefits. Furthermore, the NLRC stated that the 120 days referred to in Section 20(B)(3) of the POEA SEC[27] pertained to “the maximum number of days to which a seafarer who signed-off from the vessel for medical treatment is entitled to sickness wages.”[28] The NLRC ruled that there was no evidence to prove that Medel was disabled, other than his contention that his treatment had gone beyond 120 days. Medel was even declared fit to resume sea duty. Thus, the NLRC held that Medel had no basis for his claim of disability benefits. Medel filed a Motion for Reconsideration[29] of the above NLRC Decision but the same was denied in the NLRC Resolution[30] dated November 21, 2002. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/55119 5/14